Need some books

[Dave Schwartz]

I need to add some books to my collection.

I am looking for any horse racing-related book by Dick Mitchell, Burton P. Fabricand or William Ziemba.

Please contact me privately if you have one or more of these books and don't need them anymore.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[formula_2002]

I though so much of Fabricand’s “Horse Sense” that I bought two copies and put them in such a safe place, that I have not been able to find them for several years!!

Joe M

[Dave Schwartz]

Joe,

Well, if you find them, let me know.

Dave

[Derek2U]

i never read the book but my father told me it was the best
example of post hoc reasoning on horse racing. And, he said,
the math was wrong as well.

Derek

[formula_2002]

Derek2u... Did your dad offer any documention to support his opion...
Fabricand's math appears to be supported by standard statical
works..He didn't invent the wheel here.

I Don't recall if all of Fabricand's presentation was all back fitting of data.
Also, I dont recall Fabricand having a sufficently large enough sample.

Some day I'll find those two copies.

Regards
Joe M

[GameTheory]

Fabricand's "The Science of Winning", which updates his system, is not hard to get. I recently bought it off the internet for like $6...

[formula_2002]

Game Theory, does the up dated book continue to deal with the theory of maximum confusion?

I thogh the book was more about stocks (his real passion)

Thanks
Joe M

[formula_2002]

looks llike an interesting mixed bag.
I always jump to the conclusions first!!

Part One
The Random Walk in Science and Society
1. The Problem of Winning
2. Doing the Random Walk
3. The Random Walk in The Real World
4. Risk and Reward
5. The Efficient-Markets Hypothesis
6. The Nature of the Pari-Mutuel Betting Market
7. The Nature of the Stock Market
8. The Efficient-Markets Society
9. Beating the Averages

Part Two
Winning in the Pari-Mutuel Market
10. Horse Sense
11. The Rules of Similarity
12. The System in Practice

Part Three
Winning in the Stock Market
13. A New and Rigorous Demonstration of Weak Efficiency in the Stock Market
14. Beat the Street
15. The Options Market

Part Four
Conclusion

[GameTheory]

The basic supposition of "Science of Winning" is that the favorite will [tend to] be an overlay if there are other [almost] favorites which are very similar in terms of their pp's. The public won't be able to pick between them and will tend to overbet the higher priced ones looking for value, leaving the main favorite somewhat underbet. Now, this is a *gross* oversimplication of the system, and he's got about 30 pages of detailed rules in there for it, but I haven't really studied them.

I haven't read the first book, but he says this is an improved version of the system in that one (these books are nearly 30 years old now, btw).

Basic idea is interesting...

[Dave Schwartz]

First, let me say that I am only interested in Fabricand for my book collection, not as a serious text. I have read it (and studied it) previously and IMHO...

Fabricand's books are pure hoax!

An acquaintance of mine, who is a serious student of horse racing, statistician and programmer, once committed about 3 months to creating software to apply his systems. The systems did not work! There were contradictory rules! I remember him having me help him debug the code and it would not debug!

I believe that his horse stuff was simply a great con.

What he could get to work didn't work WELL! That is, it produced huge losses, worse than throwing darts.

Now, I realize that he one might logically deduce from this that my programmer-friend was inept, but I can only say that he proved it to me that the rules were hokey. In addition, I have great confidence in this man's abilities.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting read and certainly a worthwhile addition to my collection.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[anotherdave]

Hoax might be a little strong. I actually enjoyed the two Fabricand books. The rules were way too complicated to be used in practice, but I thought some of the concepts were interesting. I still use some of them today.

AD

[GameTheory]

I wouldn't expect any system from the 70's to work these days -- to really find out whether it was all crap or not you'd have to run a test with 70's pps, results, & tote info. Not much point in that.

I, like you, just like to read these things and stimulate my thoughts. I certainly don't expect to find any ready-made profitable systems, even if they did once work...

[Dave Schwartz]

AD,

Agreed; "Hoax" might be a little strong. And I have no proof. I think I will retract that before his lawyer calls me.

What got me was that the rules cannot work.

Actually, if it is a hoax, it is one of the grandest ever because nobody (to my knowledge) has ever been able to put it to any test (except my friend, Stewart).

Had to laugh when I got the second book because he mentioned the fact that people all over the country are making lots of money with it.

Actually, this would make for an interesting thread... "Has anyone ever TREID Fabricand?"

Dave

[formula_2002]

Well, I’m certain that with the format available for data today’s, many of us could write some programs to test the Concept of Maximum Confusion offered by Fabricand.

There would be no need to attempt to rigorously implement his critea; rather we could establish our own while keeping fateful to the concept.

Joe M

[Tom]

I bought one of hiis books at the Fort Erie bookstore in the 70's.
It was the one about comparing horses to the favorite and there were rules about seeing if a horse was similar or better than the favorite. Yadda yadda yadda - it was hard to use, took a lot of time, and back then, DRf was only available on track the day of the races - you did your work in the stands. Never won a bet using the ideas, but missed a lot of races while I was cyphering.
Maybe it saved me money?

[Derek2U]

Yes my father did say exactly why but I didnt care what he was
talking about. But I do recall he said that the problem with
researching his race scenarios would be sample size since they
were rarely re-occuring. And something with the lack of defining
situations a priori. Now I hope that helps & dont think I could
answer any more questions about that.

[Dave Schwartz]

Note to Schlagman: Your email was returned by AOL.

Dave

[Dave Schwartz]

Note to Richard Bauer: Your email is being returned again.

Will send money via PayPal. Please email me with your telephone number.

Dave

[Derek2U]

Hello .... goodbye